Bill Bennett, racism, Weasel Boy and a total lack of logic.

Yes, America's Dumbest Wanker™ needs another good figurative boot to the nads and, yes, I'm going to deliver it. Deal with it, since this will actually show one of the standard weaselly (pun oh so intended) debating techniques used by the citizens of Wankerville. I'm sure you've seen it before.

Over here, Jinx gets all frothy and sanctimonious about an African-American speaker at some conference who (if we are to believe the coverage and I see no reason not to) actually calls for the killing of all white people. Jinx then gets all uppity, writing:

Now, who will be the first liberal reading this post to call this man a racist as he so richly deserves? CC? TNO? Brandon?

How can I eviscerate Weasel Boy? Oh, man, let me count the ways. First, we have the really sleazy strategy of bogus equivalence -- the attempt to equate two things which are in no meaningful way equivalent.

On the one hand, we have Bill Bennett -- self-proclaimed conservative morals czar, GOP superstar, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Reagan, drug czar under George Bush I and so on. Just read the biography -- you don't get a lot more high profile than that in the GOP wankersphere, so when someone like Bennett starts even muttering about aborting all black babies, that's news and that's racist. And it's a big deal because of the weight Bennett throws around in conservative circles.

And, on the other hand, we are given someone who is allegedly Bennett's equal, so that equally offensive statements are supposed to be equally shocking and reprehensible. We are given ... Kamau Kambon? Who the fuck is Kamau Kambon, other than a black man who was recorded making some vile comments 3:41 into a four-hour presentation? How many of you had even heard of Kamau Kambon before reading this article? And yet, we are supposed to somehow accept that Kambon's statements are, on a global scale, equivalent to Bennett's in influence and persuasive power. Oh, please. But wait -- it gets better.

Read the article referenced by Weasel Boy here -- what do you notice? It's pretty clear that there have been some updates since its original publication, with someone having to edit to point out that Kambon is now only a former NC State visiting professor, of whom even NC State writes:

The remarks recently attributed to one of our former employees do not in any way represent the values and standards of the university. This type of speech is counter to any reasoned discussion on the issue of race relations, and is absolutely unacceptable in the NC State community.

Isn't that special? In order to find a liberal racist comparable to Bill Bennett, apparently the conservative wankersphere can't do much better than a former, sessional, visiting professor whose views have been disavowed by that very institution. Wow! Talk about controversy! Oh, yawn. Seriously, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that. And, no, we're not done yet.

So, having established that Weasel Boy is trying to defend his own racist beliefs and defense of Bennett by dragging a no-name like Kambon out of obscurity, we can still ask the question -- is Kambon racist? In a word, fuck, yes. Of course he's racist, fer Chrissake. What kind of stupid question is that? Who the hell would even think of denying that? But that's not the important thing.

It's not that Kambon is racist that's relevant so much as that he's just a certifiable dingbat. Kambon is clearly far beyond anything resembling reason -- he's just a loon. And yet, this is the man that wanks like Weasel Boy are now parading before us to defend Bennett. It would be like criticizing Christianity by forever using known nutbar Pat Robertson as the comparative standard. And I'll bet Wankerville would be all over that comparison in a second, complaining about how unfair it was. And yet, hard to believe, that's still not the best part.

Once again, we have Weasel Boy, thinking himself far more clever than he really is, writing:

Remember Bill Bennett's "racist" comment that the left was moaning about? How much do you want to bet that these comments don't garner as much of their attention (in fact, they'll most likely sweep them under the carpet):

Note the implication here -- unless we on the left similarly condemn Kambon, we are clearly two-faced hypocrites. And (surprise, surprise), WB is right -- which is why I absolutely agree that Kambon is a racist. But notice what didn't just happen here.

While Jinx was challenging those of us on the left to condemn Kambon, he still doesn't make any similar admission with respect to Bennett. Isn't that delightful? Jinx puts all of the burden on us not to be hypocrites, demanding that we recognize Kambon's racism, while Jinx himself still continues to give Bennett a pass.

Oh, yes, there's still some world-class hypocrisy going down here. And I'm betting you can see where it's coming from now.

JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I accept whole-heartedly that Kambon is a racist. So, Jinx ... let's hear a similar, unequivocal condemnation of Bennett. Come on, dude ... you opened this door, it's your turn to walk through it.

MORE WINGNUTTERY: Wouldn't you know crazy-assed bitch Michelle Malkin would be all over this story, too, since I suspect that's where Jinx gets most of his howling gibberish. Go read, then come back for a pop quiz. I'll wait. Dum de dum dum ...

And now, what was missing from Malkin's hyper-ventilating coverage? Well, there was the fact that Kambon is only a former instructor at NC State, while Malkin describes him as "an affiliated faculty instructor," totally neglecting the "former" part. Naughty, naughty, Michelle -- you're getting almost as bad at bearing false witness as Weasel Boy, aren't you?

And what else is missing from her missive? Why, not only that Kambon isn't even there anymore, but that NC State has (as I so graciously pointed out above) repudiated his comments, so Michelle's suggestion to e-mail NC State and complain will get you absolutely nowhere and will only piss off the folks at NC State because you're such an ignorant goober.

Jesus, but Malkin is a journalistic slut. As are her sycophantic groupies.

AFTERSNARK: I love the fact that Malkin refers to Kambon, then links to the Africana Studies faculty list at NC State, which doesn't even list Kambon. Dishonest or stupid? We report, you decide.

BY THE WAY, make sure you soak up the irony of someone who wrote a book in defense of internment complaining about racism.

OH, LOOK: Someone else taking an axe handle to Bill Bennett. Talk about your excellent timing, dude.

Goodbye, Jones.

This morning kind of sucks. I just had my oldest cat put to sleep. She was a sweetheart who'd been with me for 20 years and, I swear, she was ornery and tenacious enough to perhaps have stuck it out for another 20. But it was time, and I'll miss her.

Sometimes, an exorcism is a good thing.

Slate's Jack Shafer really takes it to Judith Miller. Good. Because it's obvious the Times itself never will.

Even the lies are starting to have entertainment value.

So, Harriet Miers was the best of the best, was she?

In the face of criticism from the left and right, President Bush insisted Tuesday that Harriet Miers is the best-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court and assured skeptical conservatives that his lawyer-turned-nominee shares his judicial philosophy and always will.

Ehhhhhh ... maybe not so much:

... several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

In other words, she's an idiot and ridiculously unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. I'm sure you're shocked.

You're a conservative? OK, that explains it.

An oldie but a goodie:

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

And, as if to prove the very point that the study purported to show:

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Yeah, dammit. When we all know that it was a much better investment spending $70 million investigating Bill Clinton. Man, some people and their priorities.

This explains so much, doesn't it?

FOLLOWUP over at Buridan's Ass.

AND MORE FOLLOWUP over here.

Oh, you mean THAT meeting with Scooter Libby.

It's amazing what a potential charge of perjury or obstruction of justice can do for your memory:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony...

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

I really hope they've been keeping her cell warm.

The Internets never forget.

Boy, from back in 2002, I'll bet this guy is some kinda embarrassed these days (emphasis added slowly and lovingly):

... In a pledge to America, George W. Bush vowed to restore integrity and dignity to the White House after the Clinton years.

Say what you want regarding his policies, but Bush has restored grace and dignity to the highest office in the land. Our country has suffered through a recession, and we are currently engaged in the war against terrorism, but the public is not distracted by a scandal plagued Administration. To date, not one Cabinet member has resigned nor are there any ongoing Congressional investigations into Bush officials regarding improper conduct...

[Bush] appears to understand that the office of the President is an honor, and to disgrace it is to disgrace our country. So far, his integrity is intact and we can be proud of the decency that has been restored to the highest office in the land.

I wonder what Mr. Archibald is thinking these days. Hey, I know -- let's ask him, if he's still available at that JCArch@msn.com e-mail address. Let's all send him a friendly hello and see what he's up to these days. If he's not too ashamed to come out of his cave.

WHOA ... Apparently, Mr. Archibald is pretty much the total hack. But you saw that coming, didn't you?

Mmmmmmm ... indictments.

This just gets better and better, doesn't it?

Prosecutors have gathered evidence that top White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby exchanged information about their contacts with reporters regarding Valerie Plame in the days just before the CIA officer's cover was blown.

Rove told grand jurors it was even possible he first learned inside the White House from Libby that Bush administration critic Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, according to people directly familiar with the testimony of President Bush's closest political adviser.

The disclosure is the first known intersection between two central figures in the criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

Quick, Jinx! Over there! Someone paddling a canoe in shallow water!

Wankerville class and sophistication, Canadian style.

Hey, don't you be getting all high-brow around here, dude:

From an MSN conservation:

Peter: Did you hear that Brison is getting married?
Peter’s friend: Brison is getting married? To who? Rick Borotsik?

So who’s the top?

Feel free to revel in the irony that I won the award for "Mouthiest LIttle Shit" for a Canadian blogger. Really.

The utter vacuity of the wankersphere.

If you (God forbid) needed any more proof of the absolute worthlessness of the right-wing echo chamber, how about this one from Instawanker Glenn Reynolds:

RUSSERT, ROVE, AND PLAME: Perhaps we should just indict everyone in Washington for talking to one another. . . .

Sure. It's not like there's any meaningful distinction between having a chat over coffee and, say, exposing a covert CIA operative, then lying about it to a federal prosecutor and grand jury afterwards.

Those left wingers. Ever the hair splitters, aren't we?

P.S. Remember, Reynolds is considered one of Wankerville's leading lights. The rest are allegedly much dumber. If that's physically possible.

AND SPEAKING OF WORTHLESS WANKERS, given that the absolute biggest story inside the Beltway these days is Plamegate, what topic do you think is completely and utterly unaddressed at Michelle Malkin's site right this very minute, which goes back to some time on Oct 17?

Go on. Guess. You'll never guess.

Uh oh ... seems like Scottie may have "known" some of this stuff after all.

After allowing Scott McClellan to dance away as you can read here, is it possible that the White House Press Corps won't be able to do something with this?

White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, may have told him that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed, a source familiar with Rove's account said yesterday...

The account is the first time a person familiar with Rove's testimony has provided clues about where the deputy chief of staff learned about Plame, and confirmed that Rove and Libby were involved in a conversation about her before her identity became public. The disclosure seemed to further undermine the White House's contention early in the case that neither man was in any way involved in unmasking Plame.

A serious question here for you journalistic types (and I may ask this in more detail later): At what point is "No comment" no longer an acceptable response, if someone is already on the public record? Seriously.

You had to know this was coming.

Any bets that Li'l Scottie was up late polishing his tap dancing?

Q Scott, did the President talk to Karl Rove two years ago about the leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, I appreciate the question. That's a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and I'm just not going to have further comment while that investigation is underway.

Q Because The New York Daily News says the President rebuked Rove two years ago.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of news reports out there and I've seen a lot of conflicting news reports, and we're just not going to comment any further on an ongoing investigation.

Q It behooves you to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's a special prosecutor doing his work, Helen, and we want him to come to a successful conclusion. And that's what we're doing, is cooperating --

Q This is a question that directly affects the President, and --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

Q -- you should say it's true, or not true.

MR. McCLELLAN: As you have known for sometime now, we've been saying that while this is an ongoing investigation what we're going to do from the White House is cooperate fully with that investigation and let the special prosecutor do his work. We're not going to speculate or prejudge the outcome.

Q We're not asking you to speculate. We're asking you, is this report true or not.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I've already answered that.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q Scott, a couple of things. You indicated that you hope that this investigation would come to a successful conclusion and that the American people would be told about the facts. If the special prosecutor decides not to issue a report, would the White House hope that in some way, shape, or form, the facts would be made public?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's up to the special prosecutor to determine how he's going to proceed. What -- again, what we are doing from here is cooperating fully with that investigation at the direction of the President. And in terms of how he is going to proceed, I'm not going to try to speculate about that, or prejudge it. We all would like to know what the facts are. We don't know what all the facts are. And I think all of us would like to know what they are and get to the bottom of this investigation.

Q Can you tell us if any White House staff members, or people who work for the Vice President, or anyone who works for this administration has received a target or a subject letter from the prosecutor?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, a couple of things. That's questions relating to an ongoing investigation. Those are questions you need to direct to the investigator. We're just not going to comment further.

Someone should have pointed out that it was a bit too late for a "No comment" since McClellan had already taken a position on this:

At the time, spokesman McClellan was so adamant in his denials that he told reporters the president himself knew that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.

Your White House Press Corps. Dropping the ball yet again.

AFTERSNARK: I'm a bit surprised that no one jumped all over this statement of Scottie's:

We all would like to know what the facts are. We don't know what all the facts are. And I think all of us would like to know what they are and get to the bottom of this investigation.

I'm sorry -- they don't know what the facts are but would dearly like to know?

First, someone should have pointed out that, once upon a time, Scottie was pretty adamant that he knew the facts related to Karl Rove. Now, investigation or no investigation, is he now claiming that he doesn't know them aymore? Scottie once knew something, but he doesn't know it anymore? Just how does that work?

Even better is the claim that they would like to know the facts. Well, Scott, you could have figured them out in short order if your simian president had just called in all of his senior people a couple of years ago and asked them point blank if any of them were responsible for the leak. That's all it would have taken.

And yet, here we are, two years later, with the administration having backtracked on previously unambiguous claims of innocence and Scottie hiding behind a ridiculously inappropriate "No comment." Surely the above could have inspired a direct question along the lines of, "I'm sorry, Scott ... are you saying the the president doesn't know if Karl Rove was the leaker? Are you actually suggesting he never asked him? Even though, two years ago, you were absolutely adamant that the president knew Karl wasn't involved? How is that possible?"

Or, maybe, even simpler, "Scott, if the president truly wanted to know all the facts, why didn't he just ask the people who worked for him?"

So many land mines, so few journalists with the ability to point them out. Pity.

"But George, you PROMISED I could treat them with complete contempt."

Apparently, SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers is already pissing off the wrong people:

The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."

Harriet, sweetie, a word of advice -- you're not in charge yet. Keep that in mind.

Sure, but what have you done for me LATELY?

It's always fun to watch high-profile members of the right-wing wankerhood eat their own, as in this delightful piece by conservative, former Supreme Court nominee and certifiable lunatic Robert Bork:

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, ...

Yeah, Bob. That would be the same "left-leaning" court that has seven Republican appointees and only two Democratic appointees.

That would be the same "imperialistic" court that, giving the finger to a history of judicial precedence, decided 5-4 to simply hand the presidency to George W. Dumbass back in 2000. It's funny, Bob ... I don't remember you complaining all that loudly at the time.

Ah, well, this is the Wall Street Journal we're talking about here. Any rag that publishes Peggy Noonan certainly isn't trying to seize the journalistic high ground, is it?

You want Canadian content? HERE'S your Canadian content.

No, I definitely don't need to go south of the border when I can find overwhelming wankeritude up here. Welcome back, Pete:

Alot of silly people are currently in the process of soaking their tighty-whities over the prospect of Dick Cheney being implicated in and stepping down as a result of the ongoing investigation into the leak of a CIA agent’s identity.

“Sparked by today’s Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney’s office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”

Don’t forget that all of the speculation currently surrounding Cheney is due to a single CIA leak to the media. So let’s step back for a moment.

Sure, Pete, let's do that. It'll give you a second or two to pull total fantasy and delusion out of your ass. Ah, here we go ...

The democratically-elected vice-president is now facing being forced from office over the questionable actions of a non-accountable coercive government agency.

So much wankeritude, so little time. Um ... Pete? Would Cheney be "stepping down" or would he be "forced from office"? Outside of your little echo chamber, there's generally a difference. You should get yourself a good copy editor, I hear they make a world of difference.

And there's no end of irony in someone from Wankerville describing the CIA as "a non-accountable coercive government agency." Sure seems like the CIA were the good guys when they were drumming up bogus WMD data. Talk about fairweather friends.

In Latin America, it’s generally recognized as bad for democracy when the coercive arm of the state threatens the democratically-elected arm of the state. So why are people cheering on the CIA’s vengeful attempts to subvert democracy in the US?

It's called "crime," Pete. Here, look it up. Kind of like the way your ideological buddies couldn't wait to kick that democratically-elected Bill Clinton out of office and "subvert democracy", remember? Man, talk about a selective memory.

BONUS: You have to love Pete's unintentional hilarity in the comments section there, where he writes:

Alot of people just love to hate Bush, period. Well sorry, but I’m not OK with that sort of blind ideological thinking.

Pete, sweetie ... you're not OK with the concept of thinking in general.

DOUBLE PLUS GOOD BONUS: And at no extra charge, we have Pete taking a blunt instrument to logic and critical thinking in the comments section here:

For example: It would demonstrate that Texas Democrats in general are so corrupt that even Earle couldn’t put off prosecuting them.

See how that works? First, Earle is just a Democrat engaged in a hopelessly partisan witch hunt and smear of Tom DeLay. Then, when one points out that Earle has prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans, well, that just proves how corrupt Democrats are.

And, yes, that nagging ache in your neck is whiplash, Pete Rempel-style.

Where journalists come from.

More than once, I've taken a swipe at the eye-rolling incompetence of journalists in general and the unspeakably awful (but slowly waking from their slumber) White House Press Corps and wondered, where did these cretins come from?

Well, thanks to a link from PZ Myers, now we know.

Oh, dear. Apparently, you don't ALL like me.

Well ... someone has their dick in a serious knot. Over here, some annoying non-entity has decided to inflict his subjective wisdom of blogging quality on the rest of us.

I think it's sufficient to note that someone who considers me the "Mouthiest Little Shit" in the Canadian blogosphere actually named his awards "The Anals." That's just way too Freudian for me, if you catch my drift.

BY THE WAY, Anon, about that "little shit" stuff. Fact is, I'm 6'1", 200 lbs, and I work out. Just sayin', ya know.

Hey, Michelle, did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Remember this guy, who turned out to be just another pro-administration plant in that thoroughly contrived Iraq press event? Well, apparently, you really can fool some of the people all of the time.

A public apology to America's Dumbest Wanker™.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Just give them all adjoining cells ...

... starting with her. And how could James Wolcott not weigh in on this one?